ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

MODERN ABODES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemodern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(4) C/O. Gulabani & Co. Room No. 148, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 506, 5Th Floor Shree Prasad House 35Th Road, Off. Linking Road Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aagcm1595B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Neelam Jadhav Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

House Property, does not justified. 2. No addition on account of deemed rental income could be made in respect of unsold stock for AY 2014-2015. Amendment had been brought in statute in section 23(5) from assessment year 2018- 19. Hence, the direction given to take ALV is not justified and same may be deleted. 3. In the case

SANE & DOSHI ENTERPARISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 27(iiib) of the Act, the appellant is treated as "deemed owner". (b) The aforesaid clause also mentions that partnership firm may take any other business as may be mutually agreed upon by the partners. 17. In the instant case, therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

house property income. For substantiating the same the relevant part of agreement reads as under. i. "Common Area Maintenance ("CAM") charge for the entire period of 36 (thirty-six) months commencing from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2011 @ Rs.15/-(Rupees Fifteen only) per sq. ft. on built up area, amounting to Rs.35,595/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GENTEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

house property in terms of Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Satya & Co. Ltd. 75 Taxman 193

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

193-198). There is, clearly, no application of mind by the AO. In the admitted facts of the case, there is no transfer of tenancy rights, surely a capital asset, by the assessee-owner, but by the tenant. There is, accordingly, no question of transfer of any rights therein by the assessee, the owner of the rented house property

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. NEEPA REAL ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Neepa Real Estates Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., 12Th Floor, Hallmark Central Circle -6(1), Room No. 1905, Business Plaza, Vs. 19Th Floor, Sang Dnyaneshwar Marg, Air India Building, Near Gurunanak Hospital, Nariman Point, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacn1884C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section so as to provide that where the house property consisting of any building and land appurtenant thereto is held as stock- in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period

K. RAHEJA CORPORATE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

House Property”), had on a pro-rata basis apportioned the same on the said basis. Accordingly, the assessee‟s claim for deduction of commission /brokerage expenses was restricted by the CIT(A) to the extent the same was 23 K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai 24 ITA No. 7109/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2012-13 K. Raheja

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA COPR PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

House Property”), had on a pro-rata basis apportioned the same on the said basis. Accordingly, the assessee‟s claim for deduction of commission /brokerage expenses was restricted by the CIT(A) to the extent the same was 23 K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai 24 ITA No. 7109/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2012-13 K. Raheja

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

house property’. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. It is not in dispute that the unsold flats lying in the balance sheet with the assessee were held as stock in trade by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the sale of flats shall be assessable as business income

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

house property’. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. It is not in dispute that the unsold flats lying in the balance sheet with the assessee were held as stock in trade by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the sale of flats shall be assessable as business income

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

house property’. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. It is not in dispute that the unsold flats lying in the balance sheet with the assessee were held as stock in trade by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the sale of flats shall be assessable as business income